The power of prayer - or not...

There are resources though we are not responsible, people, countries, states, head of states, are the ones who need to be responsible. Why should I feed everyone else's kids?, they had them, they should feed them, their state should take care of them, if the state isn't doing their job, then they should overthrow their government. It's not directly or indirectly our responsibility to take care of everyone. If we each cooperated to take care of our own, we would do good enough.

Read the scriptures, it has always been for human greed and pride. Islamics use their scriputures for greed and pride, as do christians, as well as judaism. It's all for greed and pride.

Godless

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If we have not benefited in any way from the processes that have left such a disparity between the comfortable and the starving, yes. England should be first on the list for aid to india and africa after many years of stripping these countries of their resources. And every american should give a little something to help educate american indians, for example. Other than those who have benefited from another's pain, you are right, communities should probably take care of themselves.
If the people who have directly benefited from the appropriation of resources gave back, that would be enough for everyone to have their bowl of rice and vegetables, clean water, etc.

The question is, are the scriptures interpreted this way because we are deficient in qualities of love and care for others, and have plenty of selfishness and distrust of alien entities, or are the scriptures the cause of this?
You know my answer, and you know it is just as valid a possibility as yours, because like nietzsche pointed out, it is impossible to apply our ideas to an earlier pre-historic society, which 99% did exist , before religion was ever a major factor in society.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Again, confused. I cannot provide you with a description of a god in any way other than what has been described in scriptures and by other theists. Therefore, if I can read about a god and listen to theists talk about their gods, I most certainly can question them.

I've made no claims of a god, that is the work of theists. And I don't tell them their versions of god are incorrect, I tell them that their versions are indistinguishable from their imaginations.

And what's most interesting is that each persons version is different from the next. And they all claim there is only one god. Silly, isn't it?

The ignorance of not knowing anything was there first, then the ignorance of trying to explain everything with religion supplanted the first.

Yes, religion is the cause of ignorance and fear, without them, religion wouldn't exist.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Surely, pure religion could be pure couldn't it?

 

Again, you appear to be retreating back to the image of a god who says "I gave them enough for them to take care of themselves. If they can't cooperate or share, screw 'em." Although this is perhaps a possible explanation for why god would refuse to help people, it is not at all consistent with the traditional Christian view of god - that god is a loving being who cares about us.

A parent who gives their children enough food to eat but then watches without interfering when the smaller children starve to death because the bigger children constantly steal their food, even as the smaller children beg the parent for help, is indeed one possible type of parent – but they could hardly be considered a “loving” or “caring” parent. In fact most people, including virtually all Christians, would call such a parent evil and monstrous. The best thing you could say about such a parent (or such a god) would be that they had an interest in some of their children surviving, but didn’t care how many of their children survived and have no interest in the welfare of any specific child.